Happiness. People go to any means by which to obtain the many varied materials and issues
that induce pleasures in each individual, and intrinsically, this emotion
remains the ultimate goal, John Stuart Mill, a nineteenth century philosopher,
correctly advocated the pursuit of happiness, and maintained the concept that
above all other values, pleasure existed as the final destination, Mill's
hedonistic views correctly and rationally identified a natural human tendency,
and his Utilitarian arguments strongly support the theory that above all else,
happiness is the most important dream to be fulfilled. Upon researching for
this paper, I came across a counter argument, which was based on metaphysics.
Immanuel Kant, in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, defends his strong
beliefs in the issue of a good will, and surfaces as MM's chief opponent on the
topic of metaphysics, The issue diminishes to a clash between emotions and
pleasures ve rses rationality and logic. Yet, what use is logic when the good
agent is miserable? Mill's stance within Utilitarianism exists as the more
favorable of the two beliefs, for happiness exist as the one intrinsically
favorable element, not an emotionless mind.
The main defender of the Utilitarian system exists within the Greatest
happiness Principle. Mill lived as a chief advocate of this concept, which
supports the idea that a decision is morally correct as long as it increases and
encourages pleasures and happiness. Kant, however, in his endless quest to
remain separate from emotions and thrive only on logic, would argue that
autonomy should be placed above happiness in a list of intrinsic values. A good
will, however, does not comfort an individual in any way if happiness does not
accompany this asset, Consider this example of a seemingly happily married
couple. The wife in this duo is madly in love with her husband fiercely loyal,
and completely happy with her marriage and children. The husband, however, as
wrongfully strayed, and had a brief, but damaging affair behind his wife's back.
Kant would argue that autonomy reigns over pleasure, and the woman should
therefore want to be informed of her husband's adultery, Mill would greatly
disagree. By revealing the secret of the past affair, the woman's happy world
would be instantly shattered. Her pride would diminish, her stability would
fall apart, and the children especially would be forced to view a nasty side of
their beloved father. In this case, individual control is greatly overshadowed
by the need for happiness. The husband is no longer acting unfaithful and the
family can easily continue to live in a happy realm, If the secret were to
families which is very important. Life is a difficult journey and most of the people try to make it
Are you more of a glass half-empty type of person or a glass half-full? In the essay “Happiness is a glass half empty” writer Oliver Burkeman would say he is a glass half empty type of person. In his essay he writes, “Be positive, look on the bright side, stay focused on success: so goes our modern mantra. But perhaps the true path to contentment is to learn to be a loser” (Burkeman). I think what he means in this statement is people nowadays are taught to always look on the brighter side of life. When in actuality people should be looking on the negative side of life to realize how great their lives really are. In this essay writer Oliver Burkeman uses rhetorical devices such ethos, pathos, and logos to prove that maybe being negative
Arguably England’s most influential philosopher of the 19th century was none other than John Stuart Mill, a main proponent to utilitarianism — an ethical theory placing emphasis on the consequences of our actions. The ultimate goal of utilitarianism is to provide a scientific approach to decision making, while simultaneously seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. As a young woman pondering the right course of action for my future, Mill’s contributions to utilitarianism are both practical and intriguing to someone in my situation.
John Stuart Mill famously criticized Immanuel Kant and his theory of the Categorical Imperative by arguing that,
people’s overall happiness and this is what God desires, so in fact this theory includes God
John Stuart Mill writes in a publication in the 1800s about the subject of happiness. John is a philosopher who is trying to say in this quote that happiness is a byproduct of what we strive to achieve in our lives everyday, whether that be doing what’s right in our mind or just having fun partaking in one of our hobbies. Many have pondered this question and have come up with varying conclusions. Some believe that a state of happiness is a choice, when it in fact it is more complex than that. In order to achieve happiness however, we must be indirect about it as happiness cannot be a conscious feeling, and in order to achieve it in the first place, we need to pursue things other than our own happiness to become happy. (Brink 89)
Doesn’t every American want to be happy? John Stuart Mill’s believes you should not search for happiness is relatively recent. He says that if you search for happiness you will never find it because you will be too busy searching for it. I agree with John Stuart Mill’s argument that we should not search for happiness.
In John Stuart Mill’s literature (575-580), he describes a system of ethics which he dubs as Utilitarianism. Mill’s Utilitarianism is unique because it is a Consequentialist theory – it focuses on the consequences of things, rather than individual processes involved. In other words, Mill argues that, for an action to be morally correct, it must solely contribute towards benefitting the greater good and maximizing humanity’s happiness. I argue that this ethical theory is flawed and cannot be used as a standard to gauge the morality of our actions because, since Utilitarianism is so entrenched on the outcomes that are produced, it has the potential to sanction clearly wrong actions, so long as they promote the general welfare. In this critique,
I will be explaining John Stuart Mill’s view on ethics. This includes explaining the “Greatest Happiness Principle”, happiness, unhappiness, quality of pleasure, lying, and the relevance of time with his view. I will then explain how I agree with the principle of Rule Utilitarianism. I will also consider the objection of conflicting rules in Rule Utilitarianism as well as that of negative responsibility, giving my response to each.
happiness, and can lead to the choice of death over life. Hopefully, we will fully
seek after a material world that in the end will never bring happiness. Joy and an understanding
end product of moral reasoning is a particular behavior, and as a person learns or completes a
Mill writes that thinkers are still arguing the foundation of morality and constantly squabbling over the definition of right and wrong. He tells the reader that Plato wrote that Socrates first postulated the idea of Utilitarianism in his writings against the Sophists (Mill 1). He says man must test what is right and wrong seemingly against his own instinct, and that instinct can only give general principles of moral judgment (Mill 2). He writes that the intuitive and deductive schools taught that there is a science of morals but did not have a first principle. Rather they relied only on second principles to guide moral action. Mill writes that utilitarian arguments are indispensable for moralists and that the greatest happiness principle has influenced even those who vocally reject it (Mill
A major problem in society John Stuart Mill highlights is that there is not a set standard for judging what makes something right or wrong. Clearing these principles is one of the fundamental steps for consensus on moral thinking. Mill believes that what makes something right or wrong is based on whether it is thought of as “good”. However, this only further raises the question on what is considered good. Mill purposes the goodness as a principle of utility, otherwise known as greatest happiness principle. Whatever brings about the most happiness is what is the most good. While others argue that natural instincts disprove the principle of utility as well as any other standard on morals, Mill believes the consistency of moral beliefs throughout history shows that there is in fact some kind of foundation.
John Stuart Mill, in his Utilitarianism, turns morality into a practical problem. His moral theory is designed to help one evaluate his moral principles and senisibilites and be able to ajudicate conflictions in moral conflicts. Mill postulates that actions are right so far as they tend to promote happiness and minimize pain. This theory manifests itself as an impartial promotion of happiness. Morally "right" actions are ones which promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number number of people and reduce pain. Utilitarian moral theories need to be coupled with theories of well-being, so that we can point to what is being maximized through the moral theory's operation. Mill's moral theory is no different. Three theories of well-being must be considered, one of which fits Mill's moral theory most appropriately. Experientialism, or hedonism, is a theory of well-being that advocates an unwavering pursuit of pleasure through desireable experiences. The theory is a mental state account which stipulates that a person's life is going well insofar as they are having pleasurable experiences and what Experientialist call "desireable consciousness." We strive to have experiences in which we can arrive at the mental state of "desireable consciousness." The Desire Theory postulates that a person's life is going well to the extent that his desires are fulfilled, regardless of the content of those desires. There is no hierarchy of desires in this account; Desire Theorists see no difference between a desire to throw a piece of trash into a wastebasket yards away and desire to win the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Lastly is the Substantive Goods Theory which, when compared with the requirements and goa...